A: There is no official government label for pesticide free food.
However, (in theory) the Food and Drug Administration could start legal action against any vendor falsely advertising food as “Pesticide Free” – when they could not prove it.

So if you find food selling in the US and its packaging says “Pesticide Free” (which is extremely rare) – it just might be pesticide free.

You ask “do we get cancer from the application of those chemicals?”
A: Many pesticides are known to cause cancer, many others are suspected of causing cancer.

I strongly urge you to try the Pesticide data website – thanks to Pesticide Action Network. You can look up any specific pesticide and its known harms to humans or wildlife.

]]>Comment on You Can’t Pave Your Way Out of Congestion ! by PSLhttp://daviddilworth.com/env/you-cant-pave-your-way-out-of-congestion/#comment-1702
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:13:43 +0000http://daviddilworth.com/env/?p=243#comment-1702The picture above is not from Kenya. Probably somewhere in Asia.
]]>Comment on How Can I Find Genuine Pesticide-Free Food? by Bess McCartyhttp://daviddilworth.com/env/how-can-i-find-genuine-pesticide-free-food/#comment-1695
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 04:54:40 +0000http://daviddilworth.com/env/?p=311#comment-1695Thank you. Great and needed info.
]]>Comment on How Can I Find Genuine Pesticide-Free Food? by Nadiahttp://daviddilworth.com/env/how-can-i-find-genuine-pesticide-free-food/#comment-1665
Sun, 02 Jul 2017 12:11:30 +0000http://daviddilworth.com/env/?p=311#comment-1665So there is no label for pesticide free food?
From what I have read, it really doesn’t matter if food is ‘organic’ instead of GMO as it just means we haven’t bred out certain genes in the GMO plant.
Does it matter if there are pesticides- do we get cancer from the application of those chemicals?
]]>Comment on You Can’t Pave Your Way Out of Congestion ! by DavidEnvhttp://daviddilworth.com/env/you-cant-pave-your-way-out-of-congestion/#comment-1231
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:01:30 +0000http://daviddilworth.com/env/?p=243#comment-1231It is actually the commenter who either failed to read the papers or understand them. All the research consistently shows that when lanes are reduced – PLANNED driving is also reduced.

The commenter fails to appreciate the difference between additional (or less) planned vehicle use and temporarily re-routed vehicle use – after driving has already started.

It is the difference between extreme short-term loss of lanes (car accident or stall which cannot change a planned driving event) and medium (weeks) to long term change in road availability and how less lane/road availability reduces planned driving.

The commenter was right about one thing. We lost the LA traffic photograph, and I too hastily replaced it with another – without changing the caption. Will fix that soon.

]]>Comment on You Can’t Pave Your Way Out of Congestion ! by R S Fhttp://daviddilworth.com/env/you-cant-pave-your-way-out-of-congestion/#comment-1228
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:35:08 +0000http://daviddilworth.com/env/?p=243#comment-1228The traffic congestion picture used is not Los Angeles, it’s Kenya. It’s curious that the studies referenced apparently were not read by the poster. Perhaps he missed: “Over the last several decades and in many corners of America, claims of induced demand have stopped highway projects in their tracks. This is wrong-headed.”

The huge elephant in the room, missed by a couple of the papers is this: Yes, when extra lanes are added, more cars flock to that roadway. But here’s what get missed: Those cars came from somewhere. The roadways/places they came from had a proportionate DECREASE in their congestion.

I have an easy way to prove much of this is wrong. Anyone who really thinks added lanes make no difference, or that they make traffic worse should do this little test. Go out to the congested roadway near you and stall your car in one of the lanes. Can you guess the result? Hint: It won’t be LESS congestion.

Bottom line for me is :
1. Monterey Pine forests need to be put under Park Protection.
Saw that Santa Cruz has done so with +5,000 acres of redwood.
And including undeveloped coastline being absorbed into the federal monterey
bay sanctuary area.

2. Pebble Beach needs to be broken up the way Fort Ord was. 8 square miles
of land monopoly in the 2000s is an 1800s land grant now defunct.
Possibly if the real, actual road paving costs could be shown to be intermingled with public tax moneys — that part of all the gates entry fees could be returned to the public, and cities started with, or annexed to, or bought for park areas.

3. Educate the public that trees are hard money, dollar assets that product profits.
increase real estate value, offset carbon, animal homes, weather moderators saving
energy bills, etc. Right now most people think there are just ”there” with little value.
Money talks, beauty does not.

I have been going to the Area D development meetings started by Hemphill and sub-group on 2 Tuesdays of month. Their goals are on Pacific Grove trees and the Area D just down from SFB Morse gate. I am tired of fighting the little battles and loosing the big ones.

These are my goals and ideas. Please call or email me if you can think of where to
direct them.
Sincerely,
Michelle Neubert